Karnataka High Court dismisses habeas corpus petition filed by transgender person
.jpg "Karnataka High Court dismisses habeas corpus petition filed by transgender person")
The division bench of Madras High Court was hearing a petition by a 23-year-old transgender (self-identified as a male) who claims to be in a consensual relationship with an 18-year-old girl since 2019, as the parents of the girl did not approve of their relationship, they subjected her to immense physical and emotional abuse for the same.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha of the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by a 23-year-old transgender person seeking directions to the State police to produce an 18-year-old girl, his alleged partner since 2019.
The petitioner, a 23-year-old transgender (self-identified as a male), claimed to be in a consensual relationship with an 18-year-old girl since 2019, and alleged that the parents of the girl did not approve of their relationship, they subjected her to immense physical and emotional abuse for the same.
Petitioner further submitted that as the girl was unable to withstand the abuse, she left her parents’ house and came to the petitioner’s house on May 9, 2022, to stay with him. The next day he was informed by the police that a case of kidnapping had been filed against him and therefore, he was asked to bring the girl to the police station.
When the petitioner and the girl went to the police station, the family members of the girl forcefully separated them and took her away, the petitioner alleged.
Furthermore, the petitioner submitted that the illegal and unlawful separation and confinement of the girl are without the authority of law and is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The police produced the girl and her parents before the court, and on interrogation, the girl claimed to be just a friend of the petitioner. She also denied the allegation of being in a consensual relationship with the petitioner since 2019 and further stated that she is willing to stay with her parents. In presence of the government advocate and her parents, the same was placed on records.
Subsequently, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it with costs.
Court observed, "Though we are inclined to impose a cost, at the intervention of the learned senior counsel, we dismiss the petition, with a warning to the petitioner to not repeat acts of violating the rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in future".
Case Title: Name withheld v. State of Karnataka and Ors.